The problem of participation is one of the most
fundamental of the present developing world situation. It is a response
to the wish of a growing number of men and women who desire to play an
active part in the institutions to which they belong rather than have
their destiny decided by outside circumstances. In this respect, the
pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes recognises 'a sign of the
times': "Labourers and farmers seek not only to provide for the
necessities of life but to develop the gifts of their personality by
their labours, and indeed to take part in regulating economic, social,
political, and cultural life." (n. 9, 2).

The character of this movement derives from the fact
that it is not simply a case of all men wanting a more equitable share
of material and cultural resources—although
such a re-distribution is essential; it is rather a desire to take part
in the reorganization of society and to share in its responsibilities.
In documents of the Magisterium, the Church has often spoken strongly in
favour of such participation, declaring it to be fully in conformity
with human nature. In every order of being, the Christian vision sees
things as an active cooperation in the creative and redemptive designs
of God, not as a passive submission to an order forcibly imposed by
external pressures. Only this kind of free co-operation befits the
dignity of human persons and turns them into responsible subjects. This
general law finds further application in various fields of social life.
In expounding the above teaching, Gaudium et spes applies the
principle also to industry: "The active participation of everyone
in the running of an enterprise should be promoted in whatever way may
be deemed most suitable." (n. 68, 2). The same is also true of the
body politic: "Citizens should take an active part in public life;
this is for them a right inherent in their dignity as human
persons." (Pacem in terris, n. 73). The problem is
particularly acute to-day in the University.

In any case it is clear that the kind of
participation should take cognisance of the complex elements which go to
make up a society. We could have a view of participation which would end
up by denying the value of all organized structures and which would
place society at the mercy of all kinds of dictatorial pressure groups.
Participation, according to Gaudium et spes, has regard for
hierarchy of function: "owners, directors, managers and
workers" and should provide for "the necessary unity of
operation." (n. 68, 1). We are dealing here with "organized
participation." But this consists in the fact that all feel they
have a share "in the attainment of the universal common good."
(n. 68, 2). These principles also apply with equal force both to the
body politic and to the University.

Co-responsibility with the clergy

The Church is also faced with this problem. It is the
essence of the Church to be one body in which all the members play an
active part. Such is the teaching of the Epistle to the Ephesians:
"The whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which
it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth
and upbuilds itself in love." (4, 16). In the body of Christ there
are not active elements and passive elements. Christ, as head of the
body and its vital, life-giving principle, is not content simply to
impart life to members of His body; He associates them also with the
communication of His own life. There is a hierarchy of functions, but
each one acts according to his own measure of activity.

However, if this is the divine structure of the
Church, it does not alter the fact that, whether on account of a certain
dependence upon the society in which it exists or else on account of the
burden it bears from the passivity of its members, the Church does not
always show forth that active participation of all her members in the
common task of building up the Body of Christ. In particular, the
functions of authority, of teaching, and of sanctifying, which belong in
a particular manner to the clergy, have tended to become exclusively
concentrated in their hands. The Christian people was too often
accustomed to entrust its ecclesial responsibilities to the clergy and
to be satisfied with adopting a passive attitude.

It may be said that the great contemporary movement
of participation has had profound repercussions throughout the Church.
It has compelled the Christian multitude to realize that it shares
co-responsibility with the clergy in promoting the common good of the
ecclesial society. For its part, Vatican II, in extending the teachings
of the Supreme Pontiffs from Pius XI and Pius XII down to John XXIII and
Paul VI, has thrown into bold relief the active participation of all
Christians in the growth of the People of God.

The clear fact is that we have here a noteworthy
change in the customary practice of clergy and laity. It cannot be said
that this kind of participation has already found everywhere concrete
forms of expression. Many of the faithful have not yet escaped from
their passivity. Others adopt a negative or neutral attitude which
really does not amount to a sharing of responsibility. For their part,
priests often find difficulties in getting rid of the paternalism they
were used to and in accepting a genuine participation of the faithful in
the organizing of communitarian life.

Participating rather than assisting

It is of interest to note the different sectors in
which participation is taking place. First comes liturgy. It may be said
that the progress effected in this sector since the Council is
noteworthy. The faithful no longer simply assist at Mass; they
participate in it. The use of' the vernacular, the simplification of the
rites, the dialogue between the celebrant and the people—all
these have changed the climate of the Eucharistic Liturgy. Furthermore,
the laity have been promoted to take an active part in worship, assuming
functions which were naturally reserved to the priest, or as a rule
centralized around him, such as the reading of the Epistle, or in
certain cases, the distribution of the Eucharist.

Likewise the question of participation by the laity
in the doctrinal function of the Church is extremely important. In
addition, it is to a very great extent traditional. The abandonment of
theological studies by lay people has been marked down as one of the
causes of the weakening of faith; to-day it is most encouraging to see
so many of the laity taking an interest in this type of study. It is
quite clear that catechetical instruction at all levels must in future
be entrusted for the most part to the laity. It should further be added
that questions arising from their secular education and from their life
in the world provide the laity with an essential stimulus to pursue
their studies in dogmatic and moral theology. Any progress in an
understanding of the faith is something which affects the whole Church.
The importance of this springs from the fact that dialogue between the
Magisterium and theology highlights the specific values of each
function.

Implies degree of maturity, competence

On the level of ecclesial organization, active
participation of all members of the community shows its utility in the
highest degree. Those who have to deal with financial administration,
with territorial adjustments, with the liturgical calendar, with
nominations to particular offices, see as self-evident the indispensable
necessity of informing the general body of Christians about these
dispositions because they have a direct interest in such matters. It is
also essential that they should be consulted beforehand, at least by
means of their qualified representatives. It would therefore seem to be
the normal course of events that, in certain cases, they should
participate in the councils where these decisions are taken; they would
thus feel a greater sense of obligation with regard to them.

Because participation makes a greater appeal to the
responsibility of all, it is thus in every way conformable to the
dignity of man and to the nature of the Church. It is clear that its
development implies a certain degree of maturity, a competence and a
sense of responsibility; this means that it cannot be applied with equal
force in all circumstances. It is also clear that it is dependent upon
an organic concept of society, one which implies recognition of
diversity of function. This should not be confused with another concept,
that of "appropriation", to use the terminology of Henry
Lefebvre. This latter rejects all authority as a deviation both in the
realm of knowledge as in the sphere of organization. This concept,
already debatable in regard to human society, is completely unacceptable
with regard to the Church. In fact, Christ, who alone possesses an
authority to teach and to govern which is of divine ordinance, has not
granted to all Christians an indiscriminate participation in this
authority but only a participation according to the hierarchy which he
himself has freely established.

Every ministry a sharing

This is the authentic theology of participation which
is expounded in Chapter III of Lumen Gentium: "The Lord
Jesus sent the Apostles to all nations so that, sharing in his power,
they might sanctify and govern them." (n. 19). Then "Christ
has, through his Apostles, made their successors, the bishops, partakers
of his consecration and his mission." (n. 28). In their turn
"priests are partakers of the function of Christ, the sole
Mediator, on the level of their ministry." (n. 28). Finally,
"the lay apostolate is a participation in the saving mission of the
Church itself." (n. 33).

Thus, at one and the same time, every ministry in the
Church is nothing else but a sharing in the mission of the sole
mediator. All without exception participate in this mission, and this
participation is exercised according to the different grades which
Christ himself has freely instituted.

Taken from:
L'Osservatore Romano
Weekly Edition in English
14 November 1968, page 10

L'Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See.
The Weekly Edition in English is published for the US by: